Ridd v JCU

If you want a good laugh have a read of the judgement in the case of Ridd v JCU.

Before you do that realise that JCU management are unrepentant.

We disagree with the Judge’s comments and are also troubled by the fact that he fails to refer to any legal precedent or case law in Australia to support his interpretation of our enterprise agreement, or academic freedom in Australian employment law. The judgement reflects views, which are not supported in any way by any case law or legal precedent  The Judge has not attempted to do so in his judgement in preferring an interpretation of the enterprise agreement that disregards the Code of Conduct or confidentiality obligations which exist both separately in the enterprise agreement and also at law.

I suspect that is code for “we’re gonna appeal”.

But having read the judgement I suspect the judge feels that he didn’t really need to quote case law and the like.  It boils down to applying section 50 of the Fair Work Act and interpreting the plain language of the JCU Enterprise Agreement.

JCU argued that the clause in their EA that discussed Academic Freedom had to be read in accordance with their Code of Conduct. Long story short – if that was the case, according to the judge, the EBA would have said so. But it didn’t.

So in the end:

  1. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.

Damning. “… the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom”. It is worse than that though – JCU management did not understand their own enterprise agreement.  As the quotes below will show the judgement boils down to the judge saying “your EA says this, you did that”.

Some choice quotes by the judge:

  1. The EA is made at the enterprise level and provides terms and conditions for the employees to whom it applies. The fact that there is a clause devoted to intellectual freedom in the EA is an illustration of how fundamental the concept is to employees of a university.
  2. It must be remembered that an Enterprise Agreement is a formal agreement that must be ratified by the FWC and cannot be changed unless the FWC gives its imprimatur. Therefore, it is the document that is the basis from which other JCU documents gain their power.
  3. The University submits that the right to exercise intellectual freedom provided by cl.14 is subject to the other terms of the EA, which must be read together with cl.14, as part of the context of the clause. This includes cl.13 (which talks of the Code of Conduct), cl.8 (which defines misconduct and serious misconduct) and cl.54 (which prescribes the steps to be taken by the University to address allegations of misconduct or serious misconduct).
  4. To do requires one to limit the concept of intellectual freedom and make it subservient to clauses that relate to behaviour.
  5. The wording of cl.14 does not show that there is any such limitation on its power or applicability.
  6. Whilst cl.14.1 speaks of the commitment of JCU to act in accordance with the Code of Conduct, it does not, in that clause, bind anyone other than the university itself with the Code of Conduct.
  7. The clause puts its own limitations on intellectual freedom. The clause speaks of a “responsibility to respect the rights of others”. As referred to earlier in these reasons, there is no right to harass, vilify, bully or intimidate those who disagree with the views espoused.
  8. The clause links the rights to intellectual freedom to the responsibilities of staff to support the University as a place of independent learning and thought where ideas may be put forward an opinion expressed freely. The clause speaks of what staff should do and what they must do.
  9. When the clause already has sufficient limitations on the right to intellectual freedom, it seems incongruous to then impose other limitations that have not been expressly identified.
  10. If the clause is truly meant to be subject to compliance with the Code of Conduct, such a limitation would have been spelt out in the clause itself.
  11. As noted earlier, the Code of Conduct is not part of the EA. Clause 13 of the EA simply notes the existence of a Code of Conduct. It also notes that the Code of Conduct can be changed after “consultation” with the joint consultative committee.
  12. It seems incongruous that a document that can be changed by JCU, admittedly after consultation (whatever that means), can override a clause in an EA which can only be changed by the Fair Work Commission.

The points in paragraphs 256 and 258 seem to be pretty damning.  It’s not clear to me what case law the judge needs to cite in making those points.  The whole exercise seems almost trivial.

But wait … there is more.

  1. What Professor Ridd did was point out anomalies in the methodology and conclusions made by Professor Hughes and others. He invited the journalist to ask questions of Professor Hughes and others so that debate could ensue and the public be able to discern the truth for themselves.
  2. It would seem to me that this is exactly what a university should be encouraging and, relevantly, why cl.14.3 actually exists.

That has got to hurt.

  1. Although not strictly relevant to the case at hand, I do note that the interview in question came about because Professor Ridd wrote an essay that was collected in a book. That essay is one of the annexures to the affidavit of Professor Ridd. In that essay, Professor Ridd is quite critical of Professor Hughes for his claim that coral bleaching was a new phenomenon. Professor Ridd also talks of climate change and bleaching as the latest in a long list of spurious claims about the Reef.
  2. Upon reading this essay, one could objectively conclude that it is more “insulting” to Professor Hughes and the other scientists than anything that was said in the interview with Alan Jones. And yet, despite the fact that the University had clearly read the essay, there were no allegations that the writing of this essay was a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Here the judge is having far too much fun.

  1. By virtue of this reply, the University were prohibiting Professor Ridd from talking to his wife about these matters.

In the end it was this aspect of the case – not allowing Peter Ridd to discuss the matter with his wife that really cooked them. Public policy promotes and respects the social institution of marriage.  What was JCU thinking? Bad enough that they tried to deny him access to legal advice, but not talk to his wife? This and this alone would have established their malevolent intent. Later the judge says:

  1. Whilst none of this makes any difference at all to my ultimate decision, the actions of the University in this respect are, quite frankly, appalling. They have had no regard for the anguish that Professor Ridd felt between 24 August 2017 and 19 September 2017. There has not even been an apology for what can only be seen as extremely callous behaviour. This is inexcusable.

To be told by a judge that your behaviour is “appalling” and “inexcusable” should have given the JCU management a lot of discomfort, but no; as indicated above they are unrepentant.

  1. Again, whilst it is not part of the matters that I have to decide, it would seem that, rather than disciplining Professor Ridd, the better option would have been to provide evidence that would illustrate the errors in what he has said. If it had been shown that what Professor Ridd had been saying was demonstrably wrong, that would have been the greatest rebuke of all.

Sad that a judge should be in the position of having to explain this to university administrators.

  1. Whilst a finding that the words written by Professor Ridd breached confidentiality would seem to be totally bereft of logic, this is not the matter with which I have to grapple. …

I think this is judicial code for WTF?

  1. Whilst this finding is incredibly trifling, it is a finding that is properly made if the direction given in the final censure letter is a lawful direction.

Wow. “Trifling”.

  1. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. On one hand, the University is finding that Professor Ridd has breached the Code of Conduct in that he has made public a number of items to do with the disciplinary process. On the other hand, he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct in that he has not referred to all of that material when he has made this particular statement. …
  2. One could be forgiven for thinking that the university was more concerned with the splinter in the eye of Professor Ridd whilst ignoring the plank in their own.

Feel the burn.

  1. The fact that the University would not concede that this finding was unjustified, yet made no submissions to allow me to even consider how the finding was justified, is symptomatic of the way in which they have conducted this litigation.

You can just feel that the judge is getting angrier and angrier.

Now it gets very interesting. Disciplinary actions at universities – and elsewhere, I suspect – make extensive use of confidentiality clauses. Here is what the judge said:

  1. There are many good reasons why there should be confidentiality in relation to disciplinary processes. As was submitted by the University, it can protect the personal information of third parties involved in disciplinary proceedings, such as complainants. It encourages disclosure during the disciplinary process knowing that there is confidentiality. Most of all, it ensures that an employer can complete their investigations without the risk of details been disclosed before the employer has been able to consider the evidence.
  2. But that is not how cl.54.1.5 has been written. It has been written for the protection of the staff member. It speaks of the obligations of JCU; it does not speak about the obligations of any other person. It speaks of the exceptions to confidentiality that would allow JCU to disclose the information gathered.
  3. If it were the case that a staff member had confidentiality obligations, the clause would have been written to reflect that, which reinforces the conclusion that cl.54.1.5 did not mandate confidentiality obligations on a staff member.
  4. All that sub- subclause said is that the confidentiality of all parties would be respected. There is nothing in that phraseology that infers that there are obligations regarding confidentiality. The only items deemed to remain confidential are all the information gathered and recorded, presumably in the misconduct process.

Oh dear. Makes you wonder if JCU management ever knew what their own EA says.

I suspect this judgement will have the HR departments of universities reading their Enterprise Agreements quite closely. The exact wording varies from document to document but the euphemisms are fairly standardised.

This entry was posted in Education. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Ridd v JCU

  1. stackja

    JCU management going where?
    Who would employ them?
    ALP? Greens?

  2. Jannie

    Its one of the most interesting judgements I have ever read. The beak gets the point. Would any of this apply to Izzy Folau I am wondering.

  3. billie

    Lawyer for JCU, on the hone to his golf shop “yes, change the coverings on the clubs to baby albino leopard skin”, they are surely th winners here and how awesome they are to get JCU to dig in for more!

    Seriously, any sane person by now would be saying, look we gave it a red hot go, but lost .. let’s move on and be mates again.

    Office politics at a university is poisonous and egotistical and this is not a rare case in Australia or any other uni. There’s power and glory in those hallowed halls .. particulalry when protecting a patch of turf, that’s obvious

    JCU — the go to guys for reef alarmism

  4. How on earth is case law going to save the bacon of the JCU management?

    They certainly have not been model litigants.

  5. Angus Black

    Had you ever been in dispute with a university as an employee, it would become apparent to you very early on that the University believes that its regulations bind everyone but themselves in whatever way is convenient for them at the time.

    Sloppy drafting and insufferable arrogance are the keynotes.

    Has a university in Australian university ever won a case fully played out in court?

  6. pete m

    Angus Black – QUT won a case against unfair dismissal accusation by a geology lecturer, but also lost against the same guy over some missing rocks, valued at about $700K.

  7. Michael

    Jannie – my thoughts exactly. Maybe there will be employment opportunities at Rugby Australia for former JCU administrators, stackja?

  8. Roger

    Would any of this apply to Izzy Folau I am wondering.

    Yes; a contract cannot undermine a public good, e.g. freedom of conscience or religion and acting upon same in public speech, as even the UN Declaration on Human Rights recognises.

  9. RobK

    ….will have the HR departments of universities reading their Enterprise Agreements quite closely. 
    Not just universities.

  10. ACTOldFart

    Of course Professor Ridd should not be allowed to discuss it with his wife. Its the same principle (to use a term generously) that Professor Triggs, as chair of the Human Rights Commission, used in saying that she wished she could monitor every conversation around every kitchen table in the nation, in her witch hunts for “hate speech”. You are just left gobsmacked at the combination of viciousness and total lack of self awareness that seems to characterise these people.

  11. Old Lefty

    I was amused to read about a ‘no satire’ rule. Given the state of some of our postmodern-Marxist humanities departments, that would be impossible.

    It had stopped by my time, but the memory lingered of better times in the early 60s when Vice-Chancellors would sit happily being lampooned at the annual University Revue. Not just them but senior professors; I have a eyewitness account of the ANI Revue of 1963 engaging in (affectionate) mockery of Manning Clark, aka ‘Professor Cunning Lark’. Imagine the furore today.

  12. Oh come on

    Thanks for that fisking, DL. Very interesting. I look forward to JCU’s appeal – should be a corker.

  13. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Ridd’s prohibition against satire of the university reminds that I just heard a related opinion from Gad Saad contrasting his own more combative style with most other academics:

    [1:01:45]
    I think one of the reasons professors don’t engage in greater satire and humour, I think they’re under the misguided notion that they always need to stay in professorial façade, right?
    I should be… I’m always pontificating. I’m a professor. I’m Doctor Saad. I should be smoking a pipe. I should be dispensing knowledge, right?
    And somehow, to be funny, to be self-deprecating, to joke around, to engage in battles over Twitter, is less than professorial.
    I despite this kind of smug elitism. I can go to Stanford business school and present there, and I can also joke around and exhibit all of my humanity.

    There are bad bits of humanity too, but the restraints we might place a professor under cannot be greater than the baseline rights of the everyday person. To the extent the role of a university, if not the funding of the university, makes them a public institution serving a common good, it would be all the more incredible if academics had less freedom than the public they serve.

  14. Sinclair Davidson

    Sloppy drafting and insufferable arrogance are the keynotes.

    So a few years ago some of my colleagues were very naughty and got suspended pending investigation. We were all called to a meeting and told that the uni could not tell us why, but some colleagues were suspended and we were not to speak to them or contact them. ‘Okay’, one of the attendees said. Which colleagues can’t we talk to? Can’t tell you that either was the reply.

  15. Sinclair Davidson

    I look forward to JCU’s appeal – should be a corker.

    Yes – this is one of those moment where you hope that the University council doesn’t fire the management and the appeal goes ahead. Should be awesome.

  16. Absurd, Sinclair. These guys (uni admins) think they’re bloody ASIO or the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission?

    FFS.

  17. Jannie

    cheers Mike and Roger, food for thought.

  18. Tezza

    Thanks Sinc – there’s a lot of value-added in your annotations on the judgement.

  19. Leo G

    Some university administrators seem to believe they are masters of the universe and not just of the university.

  20. Paul Farmer

    Unlikely Izzy will win. Doubt any clause like academic freedom or in his case religious freedom applies in his contract or will be implied in that overrides other general contract clauses as vasta found here . Fantastic decision but doubt it helps Folau. I note the comments about UN declaration of human rights . One thing for sure but is other common law jurisdictions can be referenced for relevant interpretations . The US system here is important because it has the ultimate form of Protected rights via a bill of rights and a constitution . However I can tell you Folau would lose in an US jurisdiction because common law contractual duties are not overridden by general rights under a constitution . In short , you have those rights and they are inalienable but equally you have a right to economic freedom and you can choose to trade them away if you choose to as part of a contract which is what Folau has done . People in the states were making same argument with kapernick and his freedom of speech rights with the whole taking a knee during the anthem outweighing his contractual rights . Not so , but there they simply had teams to gutless for public backlash reasons to enforce their contracts .

  21. Lazlo

    Agree with your analysis Sinc. If they foolishly want to seek leave to appeal, then bring it on.

    We donated $500 before and will do it again.

  22. Lazlo

    Paul, correct. Folau will not win on the same grounds as Ridd – I don’t think there would be any RuggerBugger freedom clause in any legal instrument covering his employment.
    He will be aiming for the court of public opinion, or payout on his $4million contract.

  23. 2dogs

    There was a question of law here that Vasta missed commenting on.

    Here it was Ridd asking for the more literal interpretation of clause 14, while JCU was asking for a more “it’s the vibe” interpretation.

    Now, it is generally accepted that contracts of adhesion get interpreted against their authors. But is an EBA a contract of adhesion? An employee may have had no say in its drafting, particularly if that employee was not a union member. On the other hand, the employer had to negotiate the terms – but with the union, not the employee.

  24. bobby b

    If I were Ridd, I’d be slightly nervous about an appeal.

    This judgment reads like very few judgments I’ve seen. Normally, you get a determination of “issues of fact” (i.e., “the court finds that the light was red when Joe entered the intersection”, or “Joe promised to paint the fence”), and of “issues of law” (i.e., “it is a violation of statute XXX.2 to enter an intersection when the light is red” or “Joe’s promise to paint the fence combined with Alice’s acceptance formed a contract”) and then a judgment (i.e., “Joe is guilty of violating statute XXX.2 – running a red light” or “Joe breached his contract with Alice.”)

    This judgment reads . . . all over the place. It’s full of phrases such as “it seems to me” and “Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom”, and “It would seem to me that this is exactly what a university should be encouraging and, relevantly, why cl.14.3 actually exists.”

    I think the judge was angry when he wrote it – for good reason, if you ask me – but he did Ridd no favors by pouring out his vitriol. A much more dispassionate Order would have easily nailed it for Ridd, since the judge was making all of the needed findings. It’s the added vituperation and scolding that are going to make the Order less secure if they do appeal it.

    Judges write boring Orders for a reason. There’s less to point and groan at in a boring Order, and there’s less for an appellate court to review.

  25. James Hargrave

    ‘Some university administrators seem to believe they are masters of the universe and not just of the university.’

    From my own experience with Krapville Tafe, they believe that their policies etc. are more important than the laws of a foreign country in that country…

    To be crude, the best use of most university administrators would be to send them on a fact-finding tour of certain disused facilities in southern Poland and ask then to test the utility connections.

  26. Tintarella di Luna

    We donated $500 before and will do it again.

    Indeed in fact I think we’d double down on that simply because of the annoyance factor.

  27. Entropy

    I think it would hav been better if the judge didn’t clearly Anjou I ate his personal views in the judgement.

  28. Tintarella di Luna

    What really needs to be done is for thousands of Australians to write to QANTAS and tell that leprechaun that they won’t be flying QANTAS while it directly interferes with the selection of the National Team and in doing so denies a player’s human rights. That’s the only way to get that myopic twerp’s attention.

  29. Tintarella di Luna

    I think it would hav been better if the judge didn’t clearly Anjou I ate his personal views in the judgement

    perhaps it can be treated as obiter dicta

  30. Bones

    As to Old Lefty’s anecdote about Professor Manning Clark being named Professor Cunning Lark in jest,
    today’s version of same would likely be vulgar, gross and demeaning in the extreme.

  31. I think the judge was angry when he wrote it – for good reason, if you ask me – but he did Ridd no favors by pouring out his vitriol. A much more dispassionate Order would have easily nailed it for Ridd, since the judge was making all of the needed findings. It’s the added vituperation and scolding that are going to make the Order less secure if they do appeal it.

    On the other hand, maybe it is entirely necessary.

  32. yarpos

    Just imagine for a moment that the team at JCU just got on with running a University rather than wasting time, energy and taxpayer dollars on this vendetta. If they can afford this much time out from running the University you have to wonder what their value add is normally.

  33. will

    Sinclair Davidson
    #2991679, posted on April 18, 2019 at 10:24 pm
    Sloppy drafting and insufferable arrogance are the keynotes.

    sloppy thinking and insufferable arrogance are two sides of the same coin, the sloppy drafting follows

  34. Bronson

    Perhaps JCU Board need to review the cost of their VC and admin in dragging the tatters of their institutions reputation through the public eye. As a board they are ultimately responsible for this farce of a procedure.

  35. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Judges write boring Orders for a reason. There’s less to point and groan at in a boring Order, and there’s less for an appellate court to review.

    That is true. JCU VC is now personally very invested in having this judgement overturned by appeal. Perhaps she would have been anyway. Her academic ‘field’ is apparently in Human Resource Management, which in my opinion is a mish-mash area mostly relying on union-influenced left-wing academics for its theory and data.

    I hope Sinc is not given his wish on this and that the University Council does step in and do a little firing or at the least some disciplining of incompetents in management; why waste more university funds on such a vendetta as this will turn out to be? The Chancellor and Council should do their job. The judgement needs to stand without contest as a simple warning to the dangers of letting over-promoted people with little real-world or hard data experience manage universities. When they were not all captives to the left the system worked well in a collegial manner and competent legal advice was often sought. Now, politicization has taken over.

    Interesting that Ridd in a post-judgement interview suggests he still gets on well with his colleagues despite having differing intellectual positions, and that in his opinion it is the Vice Chancellor who is the one being difficult in terms of his return to work at the University. Someone’s ego looms very large in all of this. VC’s in general, in my experience, which is some, are not noted for an excess of humility and a capacity to control certain vanities.

    Tinta, we also gave $500 and would double down on that for any appeal. So would many others we know.

  36. Rabid Koala

    If only JCU had a law professors they could have consulted before they did this…oh wait they do.

    This case makes it clear that universities are a joke and academics are overpaid babies who cannot function in the real world. Defund all universities and let academics fight for their crust in the free market. Those worth anything will survive and the rest can add more value to society scrubbing toilets than indoctrinating naive students

  37. Iampeter

    Damning. “… the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom”.

    That may be true, but those not supporting the right of the University to fire anyone for any reason also haven’t understood the concept of intellectual freedom. Or freedom in general.

    Oh dear. Makes you wonder if JCU management ever knew what their own EA says.

    Really?
    This legal case is a consequence of the regulatory impositions on employers in Australia. Things like leftist right to work laws, enterprise agreements and other laws preventing people from getting fired. These are things those not on the left are supposed to be opposing, not gleefully enjoying the spectacle.

    You would not be laughing at them if you had ever had a management role or run a business.

  38. but those not supporting the right of the University to fire anyone for any reason

    So what, you seriously think employers can bind themselves in a contract and then not follow that contract?

    You are a troll and a caricature of a right winger.

  39. RobK

    You would not be laughing at them if you had ever had a management role or run a business.
    Oh yes I am. Notwithstanding having had to endure left wing and government meddling. This is a clear case of the judge correctly interpreting cl14. JCU has handled this appallingly. If any agreement is in dispute, it is normal that the court decides.

  40. Iampeter

    Well, if you can’t tell the difference between contracts and leftist regulations, designed to resemble contracts, to fool useful idiots, I wouldn’t be throwing ad hominems around.

    I guess when the nationalizations come to Australia, as long as the leftists implementing them use terms like “contracts,” conservatives and libertarians will have to support them.
    Aren’t you a capitalist? Why aren’t you supporting nationalization? They have contracts! You’re a caricature!

    Derp.

  41. Jewel

    If you check out Dr Chris Conklin’s profile on the JCU website, it appears that he may have a conflict of interest with regards Peter Ridd as he was involved with Barrier Reef studies and Climate Change

  42. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From bobby b at 5:45 am:

    “If I were Ridd, I’d be slightly nervous about an appeal.

    This judgment reads like very few judgments I’ve seen. Normally, you get a determination of “issues of fact” … and of “issues of law” …

    This judgment reads . . . all over the place. It’s full of phrases such as “it seems to me” and “Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom”, and “It would seem to me that this is exactly what a university should be encouraging and, relevantly, why cl.14.3 actually exists.”

    … the judge … did Ridd no favors by pouring out his vitriol. A much more dispassionate Order would have easily nailed it for Ridd, since the judge was making all of the needed findings. It’s the added vituperation and scolding that are going to make the Order less secure if they do appeal it.

    Judges write boring Orders for a reason. There’s less to point and groan at in a boring Order, and there’s less for an appellate court to review.”

    I too found these things to be extraordinary and not helpful, for the same reasons.

  43. I guess when the nationalizations come to Australia, as long as the leftists implementing them use terms like “contracts,” conservatives and libertarians will have to support them.

    Jesus Christ what an imbecile.

    https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts

    Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts

    Murray N. Rothbard

    Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party.

    Another stupid straw man pumped up by I Am Fuckwit has been burnt down, let alone by a great such as Rothbard.

  44. jupes

    You’re a caricature!

    You’re a fuckwit!

  45. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Sinclair Davidson:

    “But having read the judgement …”

    A fine effort that, to follow Vasta’s train of thought through 24 pages of reasons, tightly set out (the courts must be on a stationery cupboard cost cutting campaign!) to identify several salient points and to explain them with clarity.

    Trawling through judgements is hard yakka especially when one’s expertise is in another profession – I am impressed.

  46. Chris M

    Delicious! I just want them to appeal this, second serve could bust their tinpot college. And management need to be sacked and fined of course.

  47. Pete of Perth

    JCU… Reefer Madness.

  48. Mak Siccar

    I reckon that if there is an appeal that many of us original donors will kick in again. This is just far too important to let slide. BTW, has the NTEU said anything about the judgement?

  49. Angus Black:

    Had you ever been in dispute with a university as an employee, it would become apparent to you very early on that the University believes that its regulations bind everyone but themselves in whatever way is convenient for them at the time.

    Pick a large bureaucratic organisation and you will find this exact underlying theme – it’s about protecting management from the actions of the employee and the customer. Neither of whom have the resources to challenge the Diktat of the organisation itself.
    It’s why so many court decisions go against State Health bodies when they get challenged by someone with resources.
    Welcome to the Dictatorship of the Bureaucracies!

  50. Lizzie:

    The judgement needs to stand without contest as a simple warning to the dangers of letting over-promoted people with little real-world or hard data experience manage universities. When they were not all captives to the left the system worked well in a collegial manner and competent legal advice was often sought. Now, politicization has taken over.

    Well said, that girl!

    Someone’s ego looms very large in all of this.

    Perzakkerly!

  51. NB

    ‘We disagree with the Judge’s comments’
    Equals exemplary damages? Paid with our money?

  52. JABL

    Whilst rejoicing in the result with many if not most of the regulars on this site, if I were you I wouldn’t bet the farm that the decision will survive appeal.

    Sally, the judge, is quite simply not renown for being the sharpest knife in the draw. His background is also not in employment law.

    But broken clocks etc he might have fluked this one. I certainly hope so.

  53. Sinclair Davidson

    According to the AFR this weekend 15 of his 1000 judgements (seems a high number) have been overturned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.